Hi,
I have not yet found the time to do proper commenting, but here's a
first thought. More details on each UC to follow by the end of next week...
Hannes Pirker schrieb:
> The interesting part of the whole discussion seems to be the point on
> how "broad" or "narrow" the annotation scheme should be.
It seems to me that one critical question is emerging here: the limit of
what should be and what should not be part of the emotion language.
Hannes pointed out a number of things that go beyond the core task of
describing the emotion:
> In UC1 there are e.g. attempts to provide labels for
> describing the communicative setting: the individual, the
> interactional situation, the target of the emotion etc.
>
> In UC2: labels for describing the technical environment: sensors, the
> application, etc.
>
> In UC3: there are labels for Input Events and Output Events.
All these pieces of information are certainly important and relevant in
their respective domain; but only there. In other words, the viability
of a generic emotion language will depend on a mechanism for including
(or linking to) domain-specific information where needed, without
overloading the spec with domain-specific aspects.
How to solve those things technically in XML is a question we can still
address later (in brief, I see at least three different possible
solutions: (a) embed emotion-language into a domain-specific language;
(b) link to external info; or (c) allow for domain-specific sub-structures).
But already now, this question of "what should be part of the language"
is important when discussing requirements. For example, in the
requirements document [1] for UC2, Christian has proposed a choice of
three states for each item:
* definitely “in”
* could be “in”
* should be “out”
A different way of phrasing this would be to try and identify things as
"domain-specific" or "generic" (or, "unclear"...)
For example, in the UC2 document, I would personally consider "ID of
labeller" as a clear case of "domain-specific" information (the domains
being something like, "emotion annotation", i.e. irrelevant for
"generation of emotional system behaviour").
"multiple emotions", or "emotion category", on the other hand, look like
clear cases of "generic" items to me.
"modalities present" is an "unclear" case to me, at least in the first
instance: it assumes modalities are relevant, i.e. that we are dealing
with emotion by a human. Of course this will often be the case, but
sometimes (e.g., in the "affective reasoner" part of UC3) we are dealing
with "system-internal" emotions which are not externalised at all; in
other cases, emotion may be expressed through media that are not human
modalities (music, colour, font shapes...).
What do you think -- would it make sense to try and classify the various
proposed items as "domain-specific", "generic", or "unclear"? I think it
would help us find first parts that we clearly agree upon, and parts
that need further discussion.
Cheers,
Marc
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-emotion/2006Nov/att-0004/UC2_analysis.doc
--
Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher
DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
Here. Now. Real, first-person experience. Am I there to witness it?